HPS v.

PLDT
G.R. No. 170217; December 10, 2012
Facts:
This case involves a complaint for an issuance of search warrant to HPS Corporation for
Violation of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code and Theft of Telephone Services and violation
of P.D. 401 for unauthorized installation of telephone communication equipment.
The witnesses testified that the Mabuhay Card (used for international outgoing calls) were being
reflected only as local calls and upon verification the card was registered to Philip Yap whose
address is the HPS Software Corporation.
After evidence was presented, the trial court issued two search warrants for violation of Art. 308
of the RPC and P.D. 401, which were immediately carried out by the police.
The Joint Order directs the Philippine National Police-Special Task Force Group-Visayas to
retrieve possession and custody of all seized items pending to PLDT.
Philip Yap then filed a Motion to Squash and suppresses the seized evidence on the basis that they
did not have any probable cause and were served as general warrants.
The same court granted Motion to Squash that directed to return the seized items at once to HPS
Corporation.
PLDT filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals assailing the
decision of the release of equipment despite the fact that the Joint Order dated May 23, 2001 was
not yet final.
The court granted said petition insofar as it released the item seized.
This case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
that seeks to annul a ruling regarding a Joint Order by the Court of Appeals on May 23, 2001.
The other petition seeks to nullify the March 26, 2004 decision as well as September 27, 2005
Resolution.
The March 26, 2004 decision modified the May 23, 2001 Joint Order directing the immediate
return of the seized items to HPS Corporation.
CRIMINAL LAW
Issue: WON PLDT has legal personality to file the petition for certiorari without the consent or approval
of the Solicitor General.
Held/Ratio: Yes. Unlike an ordinary criminal action, what is involved in this case is a search warrant
proceeding, which is not a criminal action but a special criminal proceeding. In ordinary criminal action,
the participation and conformity of the City Prosecutor is required. The case Malaloan v. Court of
Appeals, warrants are considered by the court as a process, issued by the court in its ancillary jurisdiction
and not a criminal action to be entertained by the court. With all these, we can say that Section 5, Rule
110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure that requires the direction and control of a public prosecutor does
not apply.
Issue: WON PLDTs petition for certiorari should have been dismissed since no motion for
reconsideration was filed by PLDT from assailed joint order.
Held/Ratio: No, and with specific reasons. The court considers that there was proper filing of the petition
because of the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case despite the non-fulfillment of the requirement
of the filing of a motion for reconsideration. The general rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a
condition sine qua non before a petition for certiorari may lie but such rule is not absolute as
jurisprudence show. One of which is when petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme

urgency for relief, apparent in the PLDTs situation. This is when the trial court expeditiously released the
items without waiting for PLDT to file its memorandum.
Issue: WON PLDT committed forum shopping.
Held/Ratio: No. There is forum shopping when, between an action pending before the court and another
one, there exists (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both
actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts;
and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration; said
requisites also constitutive of the requisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. In this case forum
shopping cannot be considered because the appeal that PLDT elevated to the CA examines the validity of
the trial courts action on quashing the search warrant while the other is a petition for certiorari is an
inquiry whether trial court committed grave abuse when he ordered the release seized items
Issue: WON two (2) search warrants were improperly squashed.
Held/Ratio: No. The court is impressed with merit on the argument of PLDT that stresses that probable
cause is the requisite in holding a search warrant valid. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances
that would lead a reasonable prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. In the case of
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., the court held that the quantum of evidence needed to establish
probable and proof beyond reasonable doubt is differentas the former is concerned with probability, not
absolute or even moral certainty. The pieces of evidence are more than sufficient to support a finding
were indeed made by PLDTs witness using Mabuhay card and the probable cause necessary to engender
a belief that HPS Corporation had probably committed the crime of Theft.

Issue: WON the subject search warrants are in the nature of general warrants.
Held/Ratio: No. A search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or
things to be seized otherwise it is considered to be general and of no effect. In certain cases, it is only
required that it be specific as far as the circumstances allow. The search warrants served were not general
warrants as it sufficiently identified physically and specifically the violations and the offenses charged.
Issue: WON the release of items seized by virtue of the subject search warrants was proper.
Held/Ratio: No. Clearly in this case the release of the seized items was enforced prematurely and without
any previous motion for execution on record since it should be done upon the expiration of the period to
appeal and if no appeal has been duly perfected. In this case, the Joint Order dated May 23, 2001 was not
yet final and executory when it was implemented and a motion for execution filed by the interested party
(HPS) was clearly lacking.